- Email: [email protected]
What is our role in promoting literacy for children who are “blind” or visually impaired?
IN PERSPECTIVE Mark E. Wilkinson, O.D., Richard J. Olson, M.D., and Stephen A. Kuusisto
What is our role in promoting literacy for children who are ‘‘blind’’ or visually impaired?
T
he year 2009 marked the 200th anniversary of Louis Braille’s birth. Part of signifying this event was reporting the declining use of Braille in the literacy of children who are blind or visually impaired, termed a ‘‘Braille crisis.’’1 The crisis described was one in which children requiring Braille instruction were not able to get timely and appropriate training. An additional implication was that Braille instruction is needed for the majority of children with vision loss. This approach is at least partly based on the classification the National Federation of the Blind makes, which suggests that people fall into 1 of 2 categories: normally sighted or blind.2,3 Visual impairment is not part of its classification method. The purpose of this editorial is to encourage practitioners to not place too heavy an emphasis on Braille. In 2011, the blind are no longer a heterogeneous group as they may have been decades and centuries ago. Today the blind are widely diverse, both in depth of visual impairment as well as the age at onset of vision loss. They range from a minority who are blind from birth to a majority with age-related vision loss. The latter monumentally outnumbers the former,4 and experience shows that those with agerelated vision loss rarely use Braille as a reading system. Given this diversity, it is important for eye care providers to consider what they might say to the parents of a child who has been diagnosed as visually impaired. We feel that to be an ‘‘advocate for literacy’’ the eye care provider must consider the magnitude of the visual impairment and the
prognosis for further vision loss before advocating for a specific primary learning modality. Even better, the eye care provider should advocate to base decisions regarding learning and literacy media for children on an ongoing assessment process during the child’s developmental years. This assessment process is the primary responsibility of the child’s educational team. Eye care providers should not be expected to have the ‘‘educational’’ expertise needed in this process. The initial evaluation phase should be based on a multidisciplinary team approach that will gather data from educators (visual efficiency and potential, tactual efficiency and potential, presence of additional learning needs) and from medical/eye care professionals (clinical measurement of visual development and prognosis of the visual impairment). Readily available electronic magnification and speech output devices have made print more accessible to the blind and visually impaired than ever before. The advancement of modern technology has not eliminated the need for Braille; however, the role of Braille is no longer a central one, as might have been the case in the mid19th century when Charles Dickens visited the Perkins Institute in Watertown, Massachusetts. Students without useful vision, or those who are blinddeaf, should and will continue to use Braille to develop their literacy. Yet, as we know, these people make up a relatively small population. For all others, Braille is unnecessary, though it might be useful to learn in some instances, such as for tactual labeling. Most people who are legally blind can
1529-1839/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 American Optometric Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.optm.2011.07.004
Mark E. Wilkinson, O.D. read print with the use of relative size/ distance magnification and/or with the use of optical and electronic magnification devices, which is of course the starting point for the acquisition of literacy.5,6 Some still advocate ‘‘visually impaired children should learn to read both Braille and magnified print.’’7 However, it is well-known that dualsensory readers have many problems educationally.8,9 To say that every student who is visually impaired should ideally learn to read both Braille and print is promoting a one-size-fits-all educational approach, which is as flawed in 2011 as the sight-saving classes of the 1920s were proven to be.10 Braille advocates now argue that current and future generations of American children who are blind face a literacy crisis because of shortcomings in our education system when
504 it comes to teaching these children to read and write. This is an important issue for eye care providers because of their unique position to make a first and lasting impression about Braille when counseling and advising parents about their young children who are blind or visually impaired. The problem with this assertion is that there is no ‘‘literacy crisis.’’ Those who need to learn Braille are not being denied the opportunity and those who have usable vision are able to read without Braille. It is our hope that eye care providers will not overly encourage or discourage the use of Braille for students who are visually impaired. Ultimately, the decision concerning which learning medium(s) will be best for a given student will be made by the student’s educational team as part of the student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). The IEP will be developed, monitored, and modified throughout the student’s academic career with input from the student’s educational team, the student’s eye care provider, the student’s parents, and the student,
In Perspective when appropriate. With this in mind, the eye care providers’ early contact with parents is an excellent opportunity to encourage the parents to seek the needed support and services to put such an educational plan in place.
References 1. National Federation of the Blind. The braille literary crisis in America. Available at: http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/ pdf/Braille_Literacy_Report_web.pdf. Published March 26, 2009. Accessed on May 1, 2011. 2. National Federation of the Blind. Myths and facts about blindness. Available at: http: //www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Publications/fr/fr1/ Issue4/f010406.html. Published July 1982. Accessed on June 8, 2011. 3. Jernigan K. A definition of blindness. Available at: http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/ publications/fr/fr19/fr05si03.htm. Published 2005. Accessed on June 8, 2011. 4. World Health Organization. Visual impairment and blindness. Fact sheet No. 282. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs282/en. Accessed on July 5, 2011. 5. D’Andrea FM, Farrenkopf C. Introduction: Paths to literacy. In: Looking to Learn: Promoting Literacy for Students With Low Vision. New York: AFB Press; 2000.
6. Holbrook MC, Koenig AJ, Rex EJ. Instruction of literacy skills to children and youths with low vision. In: Foundations of Low Vision, Clinical and Functional Perspectives. 2nd ed. Corn AL, Erin JN, eds. New York: AFB Press; 2010. 7. Daugherty W. TSBVI Annual Improvement Plan: 2008-2009. Austin: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired; 2009:3. 8. Lusk KE, Corn AL. Learning and using print and braille: A study of dual-media learners, Part 1. J Vis Impair Blind. 2006;10:606-19. 9. Lusk KE, Corn AL. Learning and using print and braille: A study of dual-media learners, Part 2. J Vis Impair Blind. 2006; 11:653-65. 10. Irvin RB. Sight-saving classes in the public schools. In: Harvard Bulletins in Education, VII. Cambridge: Harvard University; 1920.
Corresponding author: Mark E. Wilkinson, O.D. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Iowa City, Iowa.
What is our role in promoting literacy for children who are ‘‘blind’’ or visually impaired?
T
he year 2009 marked the 200th anniversary of Louis Braille’s birth. Part of signifying this event was reporting the declining use of Braille in the literacy of children who are blind or visually impaired, termed a ‘‘Braille crisis.’’1 The crisis described was one in which children requiring Braille instruction were not able to get timely and appropriate training. An additional implication was that Braille instruction is needed for the majority of children with vision loss. This approach is at least partly based on the classification the National Federation of the Blind makes, which suggests that people fall into 1 of 2 categories: normally sighted or blind.2,3 Visual impairment is not part of its classification method. The purpose of this editorial is to encourage practitioners to not place too heavy an emphasis on Braille. In 2011, the blind are no longer a heterogeneous group as they may have been decades and centuries ago. Today the blind are widely diverse, both in depth of visual impairment as well as the age at onset of vision loss. They range from a minority who are blind from birth to a majority with age-related vision loss. The latter monumentally outnumbers the former,4 and experience shows that those with agerelated vision loss rarely use Braille as a reading system. Given this diversity, it is important for eye care providers to consider what they might say to the parents of a child who has been diagnosed as visually impaired. We feel that to be an ‘‘advocate for literacy’’ the eye care provider must consider the magnitude of the visual impairment and the
prognosis for further vision loss before advocating for a specific primary learning modality. Even better, the eye care provider should advocate to base decisions regarding learning and literacy media for children on an ongoing assessment process during the child’s developmental years. This assessment process is the primary responsibility of the child’s educational team. Eye care providers should not be expected to have the ‘‘educational’’ expertise needed in this process. The initial evaluation phase should be based on a multidisciplinary team approach that will gather data from educators (visual efficiency and potential, tactual efficiency and potential, presence of additional learning needs) and from medical/eye care professionals (clinical measurement of visual development and prognosis of the visual impairment). Readily available electronic magnification and speech output devices have made print more accessible to the blind and visually impaired than ever before. The advancement of modern technology has not eliminated the need for Braille; however, the role of Braille is no longer a central one, as might have been the case in the mid19th century when Charles Dickens visited the Perkins Institute in Watertown, Massachusetts. Students without useful vision, or those who are blinddeaf, should and will continue to use Braille to develop their literacy. Yet, as we know, these people make up a relatively small population. For all others, Braille is unnecessary, though it might be useful to learn in some instances, such as for tactual labeling. Most people who are legally blind can
1529-1839/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 American Optometric Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.optm.2011.07.004
Mark E. Wilkinson, O.D. read print with the use of relative size/ distance magnification and/or with the use of optical and electronic magnification devices, which is of course the starting point for the acquisition of literacy.5,6 Some still advocate ‘‘visually impaired children should learn to read both Braille and magnified print.’’7 However, it is well-known that dualsensory readers have many problems educationally.8,9 To say that every student who is visually impaired should ideally learn to read both Braille and print is promoting a one-size-fits-all educational approach, which is as flawed in 2011 as the sight-saving classes of the 1920s were proven to be.10 Braille advocates now argue that current and future generations of American children who are blind face a literacy crisis because of shortcomings in our education system when
504 it comes to teaching these children to read and write. This is an important issue for eye care providers because of their unique position to make a first and lasting impression about Braille when counseling and advising parents about their young children who are blind or visually impaired. The problem with this assertion is that there is no ‘‘literacy crisis.’’ Those who need to learn Braille are not being denied the opportunity and those who have usable vision are able to read without Braille. It is our hope that eye care providers will not overly encourage or discourage the use of Braille for students who are visually impaired. Ultimately, the decision concerning which learning medium(s) will be best for a given student will be made by the student’s educational team as part of the student’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). The IEP will be developed, monitored, and modified throughout the student’s academic career with input from the student’s educational team, the student’s eye care provider, the student’s parents, and the student,
In Perspective when appropriate. With this in mind, the eye care providers’ early contact with parents is an excellent opportunity to encourage the parents to seek the needed support and services to put such an educational plan in place.
References 1. National Federation of the Blind. The braille literary crisis in America. Available at: http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/ pdf/Braille_Literacy_Report_web.pdf. Published March 26, 2009. Accessed on May 1, 2011. 2. National Federation of the Blind. Myths and facts about blindness. Available at: http: //www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Publications/fr/fr1/ Issue4/f010406.html. Published July 1982. Accessed on June 8, 2011. 3. Jernigan K. A definition of blindness. Available at: http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/ publications/fr/fr19/fr05si03.htm. Published 2005. Accessed on June 8, 2011. 4. World Health Organization. Visual impairment and blindness. Fact sheet No. 282. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ factsheets/fs282/en. Accessed on July 5, 2011. 5. D’Andrea FM, Farrenkopf C. Introduction: Paths to literacy. In: Looking to Learn: Promoting Literacy for Students With Low Vision. New York: AFB Press; 2000.
6. Holbrook MC, Koenig AJ, Rex EJ. Instruction of literacy skills to children and youths with low vision. In: Foundations of Low Vision, Clinical and Functional Perspectives. 2nd ed. Corn AL, Erin JN, eds. New York: AFB Press; 2010. 7. Daugherty W. TSBVI Annual Improvement Plan: 2008-2009. Austin: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired; 2009:3. 8. Lusk KE, Corn AL. Learning and using print and braille: A study of dual-media learners, Part 1. J Vis Impair Blind. 2006;10:606-19. 9. Lusk KE, Corn AL. Learning and using print and braille: A study of dual-media learners, Part 2. J Vis Impair Blind. 2006; 11:653-65. 10. Irvin RB. Sight-saving classes in the public schools. In: Harvard Bulletins in Education, VII. Cambridge: Harvard University; 1920.
Corresponding author: Mark E. Wilkinson, O.D. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Iowa City, Iowa.